So basically, Crowell & M. is making its money on the plaintiffs side by filing opt-out cases in antitrust class actions and charging them fees for Crowell's riding on the coat tails of class action lawyers, who do all the heavy lifting. Seems to me that this doesn't benefit the client at all except to the extent that the client receives more than an absent class member while at the same time allowing Crowell to free ride on the work of class counsel. If Crowell really wanted to give its clients a fair deal, would base their contingent fee on the amount recovered in excess of what the class recovers.

7:45 am February 25, 2010

anon wrote:

To Solomon Grundy -- I don't see anything in the post that indicates that Crowell client opt-out clients are getting any less than class members. These are very sophisticated business clients who should be able to figure out where their best economic interest lies. We're all familiar with class settlements were the class members get bubkas and the plaintiffs' lawyers -- themselves "riding on the coat tails" of government investigations -- walk away with the big money.

11:35 am February 25, 2010

Where is Tort Reform? wrote:

and his ilk? Why not decry BIG Law now that they are beginning to see value in doing class-action plaintiff-side work? Are they also not adding to the cost of doing business?

12:25 pm February 25, 2010

Solomon Grundy wrote:

@anon. I suggest you take a look at the results for the class in Rubber Chemicals. It was substantial. The case was not a risky proposition for either Bridgestone or Crowell. Bridgestone got more on a percentage of purchases basis than the class. That's typical for opt outs. The record was developed by class counsel. Bridgestone/Crowell relied on their work. Crowell can't claim credit for Bridgestone's recovery up to the class's percentage... and frankly fees for that portion should go to class counsel, if anyone. For amounts over that level, Crowell can claim credit and should get paid.

3:17 pm February 25, 2010

Counsel for Bridgestone wrote:

Interesting comment by Solomon Grundy. I agree. Dear Bridgestone...You've been had by your lawyers. They've breached their fiduciary duty to you. A legal malpractice suit involving such a claim, at least in Texas, would entitle Bridgestone to seek disgorgement of the entirety of the fee taken by Cromwell. The class counsel who did the work while Cromwell sat on the sidelines and essentially did nothing except profit from the work of others should reign terror on Cromwell for this. I doubt if a solicitation case could be made b/c Bridgestone is already a member of the class.

Cromwell--for insurance purposes, this is your first notice of a potential claim. Suggest you contact your malpractice carrier asap so they don't weasel out of coverage for lack of timely notice.

Add a Comment

Error message

Name

We welcome thoughtful comments from readers. Please comply with our guidelines. Our blogs do not require the use of your real name.

About Law Blog

The Law Blog covers the legal arena’s hot cases, emerging trends and big personalities. It’s brought to you by lead writer Jacob Gershman with contributions from across The Wall Street Journal’s staff. Jacob comes here after more than half a decade covering the bare-knuckle politics of New York State. His inside-the-room reporting left him steeped in legal and regulatory issues that continue to grab headlines.

A federal judge in Manhattan rejected a bid by the conservative advocacy group Citizens United to stop New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman from requiring that charities disclose to him their major donors.

Concerns about a gender gap in the legal profession tend to focus on issues like pay, billing rates and who makes partner. A new study by the American Bar Association looks inside the federal courtroom to see who's trying cases.